🚀 go-pugleaf

Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:38:56 -0700, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 09:06:02 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-06, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:28:31 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-09-06, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2016 10:52:01 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
>>>>>>> <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Buttery framerates are one of the most overlooked aspect of gaming, a
>>>>>>>> lot of folks don't realize how much the subpar framerates of
>>>>>>>> underpowered GPUs detract from immersion, until they get accustomed to
>>>>>>>> high framerates and then try to go back.  There seems to be the need
>>>>>>>> for a reference point for comparison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my experience it's less /high/ framerates and more an issue of
>>>>>>> /stable/ framerates. If the game is jumping from 15 to 30 to 60fps, I
>>>>>>> notice it far more than if it's a rock-steady 30 (or even 20) fps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 20fps? What is this, Powerpoint?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Age probably helps too; them youngsters swear there's an amazing
>>>>>>> difference between 30 and 60fps, but I can't see it at all. And don't
>>>>>>> get me started on the whole waste-of-money ultra-HD thing; 1024x768
>>>>>>> should be enough for anyone ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 60 is OK, it gets much better the faster you go. And I'm in my late
>>>>>> 30s. Anything less than 60 bothers me greatly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here, a consistent 60 is minimum acceptable.  I do find that
>>>>> beyond about 90-100fps there are somewhat diminishing returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really depends on the game though.  Something like Battlefield or
>>>>> Doom really benefits from the smoothest mouselook you can get out of
>>>>> it.  I find this to be much less the case with certain games, like
>>>>> slower-paced stealth games, third person shooters, or just first
>>>>> person games which typically don't involve as much twitch movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> An example of the latter is the Rainbow Six games.  Usually the action
>>>>> is so focused and intense that the player doesn't find themselves
>>>>> panning all around the room at rapid speed with the mouse.  Its more
>>>>> like you set up position to guard a hostage or control point, and be
>>>>> prepared to cover one or more choke points.  Or, you're infiltrating a
>>>>> building by rappeling up the side, then swinging in via a window, and
>>>>> proceeding slowly/carefully down a hallway with your sights staying
>>>>> aimed at a relatively narrow angle.  I typically don't enable heatmaps
>>>>> for my Razer mouse, but if you examined the difference between the
>>>>> typical mouse movement heatmap for Doom vs. Rainbow Six games, the
>>>>> difference in the type of game becomes much more measurable.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is kind of nice that the game supports high framerates, but they
>>>>> aren't a dealbreaker in that particular game simply because of the
>>>>> nature of the contest at hand.
>>>>
>>>> I find that polygons feel more solid at higher framerates. Something
>>>> snaps in my head and my perception goes from "animation" to "object",
>>>> above a certain FPS threshold.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think that's a big part of it.  When my eyes pan or look
>>> quickly around whatever my environment is, there is no blurrying,
>>> jerkiness, or similar issues, so the closer that fluid real life
>>> movement is replicated on the screen, the more convincing everything
>>> on the screen will be to me.
>>>
>>> I never even understood the "motion blur" effect in many games,
>>> supposedly it is to mimick some visual characteristic of eye movement,
>>> but real life objects either don't blur with my vision (*) no matter
>>> how fast I pan my eyes, or the blurring effect occurs so quickly I
>>> can't see it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually it mimics film movies. Our eyes don't see like that, but the
>> blur within cels makes the 23 fps of movies look more like movement
>> instead of single pictures. If your game isn't stuck at 23 fps (or 30
>> perhaps) then there's no reason to use it.  It tends to be way overdone
>> in games too, it should be blur between the two frames to either side
>> time wise of the frame it's playing, but they make it blur over an
>> entire second or so usually (i.e. 22 or more frames too much).
>
> That sounds right, I didn't really research it (recently) but what
> you're saying sounds familar.  I just turn it off in all games.
>
> What's odd though (and what might have thrown my thinking off) is that
> in most titles it seems to be defaulted to ON for the "Ultra"
> settings, and turned off on lower settings.  To me that seems converse
> of the purpose you mentioned above for compensating for poor
> framerates, since anyone interested in maximized settings is usually
> playing with upper end hardware rather than trying to squeak by at
> lower framerates.
>

Yeah, it takes up more GPU power, so it actually slows down the 
framerate further, which is even stupider than having it on so long.

- Justisaur